Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

AFAIR you are allowed to do whatever it darned takes to use the work you licensed / bought legally. So if your copy has DRM that prevents you from using it on whatever device you have, you have the uncontroversial right to circumvent the heck out of it.

Don't know if that's what the Court says here, but it shouldn't take the Highest Court to tell that. It's so bloody obvious to anyone who took a [European] copyrigh law course ;P (I highly recommend anyone to take a course like that. This is law we're talking about. It's to be understood by lawyers, not by general public.)

I know that there was a US ruling a few months ago that carried the same thrust. It said that the DRM circumvention part of the DMCA only applied when the circumvention was for the purposes of violating copyright, not for viewing or fair use purposes. I think there may be some question, however, as to whether that ruling will be applied in every case.

Whether in Europe or US, it's like there is no long term definite rule. As per need or subjectivity of judges or targeted 'victims' or influence of requesters, what is understood in texts may vary widely, what is declared from one understanding is always complex as if to mask some real goal... in brief, there are no rules. This is just a 2c point of view.

> ... in brief, there are no rules....

The rule of law in the US had been on the decline for quite a while, and was completely destroyed by the Bush and Obama administrations.

I would say it lasted, if it lasted at all, until 1794 with the Whiskey Tax, which was blatantly unconstitutional, as well as the later Alien and Sedition acts.

So long as anyone has "discretion", it is not "rule of law", it is "rule of men". The completely arbitrary nature of traffic and drug enforcement is only the most obviously example in every day life.

The rule of law is the way it is because it is a "gamed" system. We have an adversarial system instead of a system designed to find truth and appropriate remedies. So, prosecutors/plaintiffs game the system by piling on strong accusations, while defendants counter with elaborate facts, legal theories or counter-accusations. "Winning," is more appropriate than finding the truth. In the case of criminal law, a prosecutor will pile on charge after charge which would subject the defendant to a frightening and unreasonable penalty. So, regardless of the level of culpability, the defendant feels compelled to "settle," or plea-bargain, assuring a more reasonable risk. Think of the Aaron Swartz case,... Prosecutors piled on over 3 decades worth of charges and fines over $1 Million, in order to make a political point. Result?!?! And??? ... Well, you know the rest. In reality, he MAY have been guilty of a state misdemeanor, and little else...

Exactly, Jase. The prosecutors "used their discretion."